Author
Topic: 1D X ISO Shots (Read 5386 times)

I took several ISO shots with the 1D X indoors, in fluorescent light. I did 6400, 10000, 12800, 25600, and 51200. I then cropped the mug I was shooting at ISO 51200 and did no NR, and then 80% NR in Camera RAW. I then show the whole scene at 80% NR in Camera RAW.

canon rumors FORUM

So if you do draw any conclusions, I would suppose you'd say the 1D X is slightly better than the 5D Mark III? I don't even think we need to do the ISO comparison test with the 1D Mark IV; we already know the answer.

I had a feeling, after looking at RAW samples from the 1DX @ ISO 10,000, that my Mark III was every bit as good at higher ISOs. This sort of validates my thoughts. Granted, every shooting scenario is different and i've noticed far worse noise at these same ISO levels depending on the lighting and subject matter, but thanks for doing this controlled test!

I would say there is marginally less noise in the 1D X, but nothing to really use as a reason for going with the 1D X and only visible side by side. However, to me, the colour reproduction is better in the 1D X, as the MkIII has a slight yellow tinge. Again though, that would be easy to correct and could be done with a preset to save time. Most probably wouldn't benefit from the 1D X, but those that need the features (e.g. weather sealing, speed etc.) would happily pay the extra. AF accuracy may be similar, but the reported increased AF/tracking speed of the 1D X could be the difference in getting the shot, which alone would be worth the extra to pros that have to rely on it to get the shot.

I would say there is marginally less noise in the 1D X, but nothing to really use as a reason for going with the 1D X and only visible side by side. However, to me, the colour reproduction is better in the 1D X, as the MkIII has a slight yellow tinge. Again though, that would be easy to correct and could be done with a preset to save time. Most probably wouldn't benefit from the 1D X, but those that need the features (e.g. weather sealing, speed etc.) would happily pay the extra. AF accuracy may be similar, but the reported increased AF/tracking speed of the 1D X could be the difference in getting the shot, which alone would be worth the extra to pros that have to rely on it to get the shot.

Basically, the 1DX is a speed demon. 12 FPS and unsurpassed autofocus performance.

There are quite a number of other differences between the 1DX and the 5DIII, but none of them are any more significant to real-world shooting than the noise difference we see here.

Unless the 6 FPS of the 5DIII isn't fast enough for what you're doing, there's no reason to spend thousands more on the 1DX. But there are those for whom 6 FPS is painfully, unusably slow, and their biggest problem right now is wiping the drool off the back of their sniny new 1DXs.

I'm just wondering when we'll see the 1DXXX with its 24 FPS framerate and buffer limited only by card space...imagine what the cinematographers will do with that!